Children s
health Many people call or write the National Coalition for the
Homeless to ask about the number of homeless people in the United
States. There is no easy answer to this question, and in fact, the
question itself is misleading. In most cases, homelessness is a
temporary circumstance — not a permanent condition. A more
appropriate measure of the magnitude of homelessness is therefore the
number of people who experience homelessness over time, not the
number of “homeless people.”

Studies of
homelessness are complicated by problems of definitions and
methodology. This fact sheet describes definitions of homelessness,
methodologies for counting homeless people, recent estimates of
homelessness, and estimates of the increase in homelessness over the
past two decades. Additional resources for further study are also
provided.

DEFINITIONS

As a result of
methodological and financial constraints, most studies are limited to
counting people who are literally homeless — that is, in shelters
or on the streets. While this approach may yield useful information
about the number of people who use services such as shelters and soup
kitchens, or who are easy to locate on the street, it can result in
underestimates of homelessness. Many people who lack a stable,
permanent residence have few shelter options because shelters are
filled to capacity or are unavailable. A recent study of 30 U.S.
cities found that in 1998, 26% of all requests for emergency shelter
went unmet due to lack of resources (U.S. Conference of Mayors,
1998). In addition, a review of homelessness in 50 cities found that
in virtually every city, the city’s official estimated number of
homeless people greatly exceeded the number of emergency shelter and
transitional housing spaces (National Law Center on Homelessness and
Poverty, 1999). Moreover, there are few or no shelters in rural areas
of the United States, despite significant levels of homelessness
(Aron and Fitchen, 1996). As a result of these and other factors,
many people who lack permanent housing are forced to live with
relatives and friends in crowded, temporary arrangements. People
living in unstable housing arrangements who lack a permanent place to
stay are experiencing a kind of homelessness, but because they are
not “literally homeless,” they will not be counted.

METHODOLOGY

Researchers use
different methods to measure homelessness. One method attempts to
count all the people who are literally homeless on a given day or
during a given week (point-in-time counts). A second method of
counting homeless people examines the number of people who are
homeless over a given period of time (period prevalence counts).

Choosing between
point-in-time counts and period-prevalence counts has significant
implications for understanding the magnitude and dynamics of
homelessness. The high turnover in the homeless population documented
by recent studies (see below) suggests that many more people
experience homelessness than previously thought, and that most of
these people do not remain homeless. Because point-in-time studies
give just a “snapshot” picture of homelessness, they only count
those who are homeless at a particular time. Over time, however, some
people will find housing and escape homelessness while new people
will lose housing and become homeless. Systemic social and economic
factors (prolonged unemployment or sudden loss of a job, lack of
affordable housing, domestic violence, etc.) are frequently
responsible for these episodes of homelessness. Point-in-time studies
do not accurately identify these intermittently homeless people, and
therefore tend to overestimate the proportion of people who are
chronically homeless — particularly those who suffer from severe
mental illness and/or addiction disorders and who therefore have a
much harder time escaping homelessness and finding permanent housing.
For these reasons, point-in-time counts are often criticized as
misrepresenting the magnitude and nature of homelessness.

There is another
important methodological issue that should be considered. Regardless
of the time period over which the study was conducted, many people
will not be counted because they are not in places researchers can
easily find. This group of people, often referred to as “the
unsheltered” or “hidden” homeless, frequently stay in
automobiles, camp grounds, or other places that researchers cannot
effectively search. For instance, a national study of formerly
homeless people found that the most common places people who had been
literally homeless stayed were vehicles (59.2%) and makeshift
housing, such as tents, boxes, caves, or boxcars (24.6%) (Link et
al., 1995). This suggests that homeless counts may miss significant
numbers of people who are literally homeless, as well as those living
in doubled-up situations.

NATIONAL
ESTIMATES OF HOMELESSNESS

There are at
least four widely used national estimates of homelessness. Many are
dated, or based on dated information. For all of the reasons
discussed above, none of these estimates represents “how many
people are homeless.”

500,000 –
600,000 (1988)

The most widely
cited example of a point-in-time estimate is the approximately
500,000-600,000 homeless people found in shelters, eating at soup
kitchens, or congregating on the street during one week in 1988 (Burt
and Cohen, 1989).

700,000+/night;
2 million/year (1999)

The
500,000-600,000 estimate is sometimes updated by using a projected
rate of increase of 5% a year to produce an estimate of over 700,000
people homeless on any given night, and up to 2 million people who
experience homelessness during one year (National Law Center on
Homelessness and Poverty, 1999).

Seven million
(1985-1990)

In 1990, a
national telephone survey identified formerly homeless people and
produced life-time and five-year prevalence estimates of
homelessness. Seven percent of the respondents reported that they had
been literally homeless at some point in their lives, and three
percent reported being homeless at some point between 1985-1990 (Link
et al.,1994). The Clinton Administration’s Priority Home! The
Federal Plan to Break the Cycle of Homelessness uses this data,
corrected to include children, to estimate that between 4.95 million
to 9.32 million people (with a mid-point of 7 million) experienced
homelessness in the latter half of the 1980s.

A second study
was undertaken in 1994 to refine the analysis with more explicit
definitions and detailed information. This study found that 6.5% (12
million adults nationwide) of the respondents had been literally
homeless at some point in their lives, and that 3.6% (6.6 million
adults nationwide) of the respondents had experienced homelessness
(literal or doubled up) between 1989-1994 (Link et al., 1995). Thus,
it appears that 12 million of the adult residents of the U.S. have
been literally homeless at some point in their lives.

Three percent
(1994)

Dennis Culhane’s
study of turnover rates in shelters in New York City and Philadelphia
is another example of a period prevalence count. This study revealed
that 3% of Philadelphia’s population used the public shelter system
between 1990 and 1992, and that in New York, 3% of the population
received shelter between 1988-1992 (Culhane et al., 1994). The
Culhane study also found that in New York City, a single shelter bed
accomodates four different people in the course of a year; in
Philadelphia, each bed accomodates six different persons per year.
Because this study did not include persons in privately funded
shelters or on the streets, the findings underestimate homelessness
in both cities.

A study by
Martha Burt compared these rates with data from seven other
jurisdictions (Burt, 1994). The comparison showed that the New York
City and Philadelphia rates fall well within the range of data from
other regions of the country.

IS HOMELESSNESS
INCREASING?

One limited
measure of the growth in homelessness is the increase in the number
of shelter beds over time. A 1991 study examined homelessness “rates”
(the number of shelter beds in a city divided by the city’s
population) in 182 U.S. cities with populations over 100,000. The
study found that homelessness rates tripled between 1981 and 1989 for
the 182 cities as a group (Burt, 1997).

A 1997 review of
research conducted over the past decade (1987-1997) in 11 communities
and 4 states found that shelter capacity more than doubled in nine
communities and three states during that time period (National
Coalition for the Homeless, 1997). In two communities and two states,
shelter capacity tripled over the decade.

These numbers
are useful for measuring the growth in demand for shelter beds (and
the resources made available to respond to that growth) over time.
They indicate a dramatic increase in homelessness in the United
States over the past two decades.

CONCLUSION

By its very
nature, homelessness is impossible to measure with 100% accuracy.
More important than knowing the precise number of people who
experience homelessness is our progress in ending it. Recent studies
suggest that the United States generates homelessness at a much
higher rate than previously thought. Our task in ending homelessness
is thus more important now than ever.

+

+ the Congress
or a State law.

The National
Coalition for the Homeless provided leadership in the successful
effort to pass the Stewart B. McKinney Homelessness Assistance Act in
1987. Since then, NCH has continued to monitor the reauthorization
and appropriations process for McKinney Act programs and other
programs affecting poor and homeless people. NCH supports legislation
to provide an adequate supply of affordable housing, jobs which pay a
living wage, and universal access to health care. Legislative Alerts
Learn about homelessness-related legislation being considered by
Congress and what you can do about it. General Homelessness Issues
NCH’s 2000 Federal Legislative Agenda This document provides an
overview of NCH’s federal legislative priorities for 2000,
including housing, health, education, income, and civil rights. The
McKinney Act The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act was the
first — and remains the only — major federal legislative response
to homelessness. This fact sheet provides a brief history of the
McKinney Act, describes its content and evolution, and summarizes
recent trends in McKinney Act legislation and funding. Funding and
Budget Issues Appropriations for Federal Homeless Programs Table of
FY95-00 funding levels for homeless programs. FY2001 Budget and
Homelessness This page summarizes the most recent budget and
appropriations legislation and provides NCH’s recommended funding
levels for federal homeless programs. Housing and Shelter Issues
Community Housing Investment Trust Discusses key provisions of an
NCH-sponsored initiative to create one million units of high-quality,
affordable rental housing for persons whose annual incomes are less
than the minimum wage, including persons with disabilities, elder
age, or low-wage incomes. McKinney Side by Side Side by Side
comparison of major components of proposals to amend HUD homeless
legislation (July 2000). Housing and Welfare Reform: Background
Information Prepared by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
this paper explores the impact of welfare policy on housing and the
impact of housing policy on welfare. Welfare Issues Welfare to What:
Early Findings on Family Hardship and Well-Being Published by the
Children’s Defense Fund and the National Coalition for the Homeless
in November 1998, this report examines the impacts on families two
years after the signing of the federal welfare law. It presents
national and local findings and compiles more than 30 state and local
studies. The Executive Summary is available at
http://nch.ari.net/w2wexec.html. The full report may be downloaded
below. Welfare to What (Full Report – 246K) Note: To view this
file, you will need Acrobat Reader.

Using TANF to
Reduce and Prevent Homelessness: Effective Practices and Strategies.
Published in May 2000, this paper was written to provide specific
examples of how states and communities have used TANF productively to
reduce and prevent homelessness. Other Internet Resources on Welfare
and Poverty Links to online organizations and sources of information
on poverty and welfare. Education Issues School Segregation and
Homeless Children and Youth This overview summarizes available
information on integrated homeless education programs (those programs
that help homeless children enroll, attend, and succeed in mainstream
schools) and segregated classrooms or schools (those that separate
homeless children from housed children on the basis of their
homelessness alone). For more detailed information, including program
examples, please see School Segregation and Homeless Children and
Youth: Questions and Answers Reauthorization of the McKinney Act’s
Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program Congress will
consider legislation to reauthorize the McKinney Act’s Education of
Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY) program in 1999. The EHCY program
works to ensure homeless children and youth’s enrollment,
attendance, and success in school. This page provides up-to-date
information on reauthorization for advocates, teachers, service
providers, and administrators, including analyses and summaries of
reauthorization legislation, links to relevant committees, and more
detailed action alerts. America’s Homeless Children: Will Their
Future Be Different? A Survey of State Homeless Education Programs
The McKinney Act is responsible for significant improvements in
homeless children’s access to public education. However, increasing
homelessness among families with children and a simultaneous
reduction in federal funding threatened the progress that states and
communities had made in helping homeless children and youth enroll,
attend, and succeed in school. This 1997 40-state survey examines the
accomplishments and challenges of homeless education programs faced
with increasing demand for services and decreasing resources. Making
the Grade: Successes and Challenges in Educating Homeless Children
and Youth The 1996 Position Document of the National Association of
State Coordinators for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth.
This report summarizes the history and progress of efforts to educate
homeless children and youth, profiles 30 selected state homeless
education programs, and offers recommendations for improving the
McKinney Education for Homeless Children and Youth program. Health
Issues No Open Door: Breaking the Lock on Addiction Recovery for
Homeless People This NCH report examines what has been learned in the
last decade about the barriers that homeless people face in accessing
addictive disorder services and the treatment and recovery
interventions that are effective with the homeless population. The
Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (PATH)
Program Describes the function and accomplishments of the McKinney
Act’s Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness
(PATH) program, as well as NCH’s recommendations for expanding and
strengthening PATH. Homeless Treatment and Recovery Competitive Grant
Program Describes NCH’s initiative to reauthorize and appropriate
funds for a national competitive grant program to develop and expand
addictive and mental disorder treatment and recovery opportunities
for homeless persons with addictive and mental disorders Increased
Demand, Decreased Supply: Challenges to the McKinney Act’s Health
Care for the Homeless Program Changes in the health care marketplace,
in public policy, and in the face of homelessness itself are creating
new demand for health services for homeless people according to this
study published by the National Health Care for the Homeless Council
and the federal Bureau of Primary Health Care.

+

In 1996, the
number of persons living in poverty was 36.5 million or 13.7 percent
of the population. (This does not represent a significant change from
1995, when 36.4 million (13.8 percent) were poor.)

In 1996, 20.5
percent of children under age 18 were poor, a larger percentage than
any other age group. (In 1995, the rate was 20.8 percent.) Children
under the age of 18 represent 40 percent of the poverty population,
even though they are only 27 percent of the total population.

The overall
poverty rate for children under age six was 22.7 percent. Of children
under age six living in female-headed families, 58.8 percent were
poor, compared with 11.5 percent of such children in married-couple
families.

The poverty rate
for all whites was 11.2 percent, 8.6 percent for non-Hispanic whites,
28.4 percent for blacks, 29.4 percent for Hispanics (who may be of
any race), and 14.5 percent for Asians and Pacific Islanders. (None
of these race or ethnic groups experienced any significant change in
the number of poor or the poverty rate between 1995 and 1996.)

The poverty rate
for families was 11.0 percent, representing 7.7 million families. (In
1995, 7.5 million (10.8 percent) families were poor; this does not
represent a significant change.)

Of the poor over
the age of 16, 41 percent worked, and 10 percent worked year-round,
full-time. (For all persons 16 years and older, 70 percent worked and
44 percent worked year-round, full-time.)

Elderly persons
(over age 65) are 12 percent of the total population, but make up
only nine percent of the poor; 10.8 percent of persons aged 65 and
over were poor in 1996. However, the elderly made up 19 percent of
the 12.8 million “near poor” (people with family incomes between
(100-125 percent of their respective thresholds). A higher proportion
of the elderly (7.6 percent) than the nonelderly (4.4 percent) were
classified as “near poor.” In 1996, 4.8 percent of the total
population were “near poor.”

The foreign-born
population was disproportionately poor when compared with natives1 of
the United States. With a 1996 poverty rate of 21.0 percent, the 25.8
million foreign-born individuals represented only 9.7 percent of the
total population but comprised 14.8 percent of the poor. Of the
foreign-born population, 16.7 million people (64.9 percent) were not
naturalized citizens; 26.8 percent of non-citizens were poor; 10.4
percent of naturalized citizens were poor (the poverty rate for
natives was 12.9 percent

Over the past
year, over 2 million men, women, and children were homeless. Just in
1995 the demand for shelter increased by 11%.

And even more
Americans are at risk of homelessness. A recent HUD report found that
3 million poor Americans had worst case housing needs, paying more
than 50% of their income on rent, while HUD estimates that this
figure should be no more than 30%.

A missed
paycheck, a health crisis, or an unpaid bill pushes poor families
over the edge into homelessness.

The homeless
population is diverse:

+ 25-40% work.

+ 37% are
families with children.

+ 25% are
children.

+ 25-30% are
mentally disabled.

+ 30% are
veterans.

+ 40% are drug
or alcohol dependent.

To end
homelessness, new policies must be implemented to address its
fundamental causes:

+ Lack of
Affordable Housing: Today, fewer than 30% of those eligible for
low-income housing receive it. The private stock of extremely
low-rent units fell by 478,000 units between 1985 and 1993, and
federal housing programs have been slashed by over 75%.

+ Lagging
Incomes: Incomes for the poorest Americans have not kept pace with
rising housing costs. Millions of workers are shut out of the private
housing market.

+ Slashed
Services and Government Assistance: At the same time earned income
for the poor was decreasing, assistance programs were severely cut.
Fewer that 14% of disabled homeless people receive disability
benefits.

Opinion polls
show that the majority of Americans sup-port solutions to end
homelessness. To achieve

Increasing
rents, destruction of traditional low-income housing, and the cuts in
federal housing programs threaten affordable housing with virtual
extinction. Affordability is the critical housing problem for people
with low incomes. The Low Income Housing Information Service
estimates that there are twice as many low-income families searching
for housing as there are units available. During the 1970’s alone,
about one-half of the nation’s total stock of single room occupancy
units (SRO’s) was destroyed, leaving many former occupants on the
streets or in shelters. Many of these homeless people are waiting on
subsidized Section 8 housing lists — a wait that can take up to six
years.

Only 30% of poor
people eligible for housing assistance actually receive it. According
to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, in 1993 worst
case housing needs reached an all-time high of 5.3 million
households. They paid more than half their incomes for housing or
lived in housing with serious physical problems — or both. The
problem is getting worse. The number of unassisted, very low-income
renter households facing housing quality problems increased by
400,000 between 1991 and 1993.

Income

According to the
most recent Census Bureau data, 36.4 million people lived at or below
the poverty line in 1995 and are at serious risk of homelessness.
About one in ten of the extremely poor become homeless.

With the
national unemployment rate currently at 5.4%, previously-working
Americans find themselves at risk of homelessness. Additionally,
minimum wage earnings no longer lift families above the poverty line.
More than 3 million poor Americans spend more than half of their
total income on housing, yet the Department of Housing and Urban
Development estimates families should spend no more than 30%.
Although 20% of homeless adults are employed, many work in day-labor
jobs that do not meet basic needs, while technological acceleration
excludes others from a competitive job market.

Slashed public
assistance has also left many people homeless or at risk of
homelessness. Replacement of the Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC) entitlement program– a program that was already
inadequate in meeting the needs of families — with the
non-entitlement block rant program will significantly increased the
risk of homelessness for many Americans. According to the House Ways
and Means Committee, AFDC represents less than half of the poverty
threshold in three out of four states. Furthermore, earned income and
asset limitations discourage individuals and families from breaking
the cycle of homelessness and extreme poverty. Several states have
terminated or reduced General Assistance benefits for individuals,
while Social Security Income (SSI) is inadequate — and sometimes
impossible to obtain — for disabled individuals. Food stamps have
also been reduced, leaving a gaping hole in the so-called safety net.

Services

The escalating
health care crisis places low- and middle-income families at serious
risk of homelessness, while inadequate government programs addressing
mental health, child care and education impede homeless people from
escaping their circumstances. The majority of the 37.9 million
Americans without health insurance earn low incomes and are less
likely to weather an economic crisis resulting from prolonged
illness. Homeless people are twice as likely as the general
population to have chronic health problems but are less likely to
have access to adequate health care.

Additionally,
under-resourced substance abuse programs prevent thousands of
low-income individuals from receiving treatment. And although 23-30%
of homeless people suffer from mental illness, fewer than 3% of
homeless men and 14% of homeless women receive their entitled
disability benefits, while deinstitutionalization policies of the
1960’s left many individuals abandoned to the streets with no
services or means of support. Of the 2,000 federally-supported
facilities planned to reintegrate these individuals into society,
fewer than 800 materialized.

In the United
States, available day care meets only a fraction of total need.
Millions of parents must choose between seeking employment and caring
for their children, resulting in the reliance of many families on the
welfare system. Education policy also increases social disparities.
Residency requirements, inability to obtain school records, and lack
of transportation are primary barriers to public education for the
more than 750,000 homeless children annually. Almost 23% of
school-aged homeless children are regularly shut out from school.

Civil Rights

There are more
homeless people in the United States than resources available to help
them — more than 750,000 homeless people on any given night and
only 250,000 spaces available in shelters. People have no place else
to be — except in public.

Cities across
the country are responding to this disparity, not by addressing the
causes of homelessness, but by passing and enforcing laws punishing
homeless people for begging as well as for sleeping and even sitting
in public — even though there are no alternative places for
homeless people to sleep or sit. At least 72 cities have pursued
efforts to criminalize activities associated with homelessness. For
example:

+ In Cleveland,
police officers pursued a policy of driving homeless people from
downtown areas to remote industrial areas and leaving them there.

+ The City of
Santa Monica passed ordinances ensuring that there is no public place
where homeless people can sleep. The City also passed laws to prevent
private individuals from distributing food to hungry people.

+ In an effort
to keep homeless people away from downtown businesses, the City of
Seattle vigorously enforces laws preventing homeless people from even
sitting down to rest in public downtown areas.

both the
shortage of affordable housing and the inadequacy of income to meet
basic needs. Permanent solutions must also address the additional
need for treatment for people suffering from disabilities.

+ Prohibit
Discrimination. Prohibit laws that discriminate against homeless
people, including laws that specifically target them or activities
they must engage in because they are homeless.

Permanent
solutions must also prevent people from becoming homeless. New
policies that address the underlying structural causes of
homelessness — by addressing housing, income and treatment problems
— must coincide with specific prevention policies to stem the
rising tide of homelessness.

Increasingly,
homelessness affects not only the very poor, but also working and
middle class Americans. Middle class families are increasingly unable
to afford to buy, or even rent, their own homes. Middle class workers
are now facing rising unemployment, coupled with declining assistance
from “safety net” programs.

Permanent
solutions to homelessness reintegrate homeless people into society
and foster self-empowerment. Policies that produce affordable housing
by employing homeless people are among the necessary policies that
strengthen the economy while also helping to end homelessness.

Despite recent
media reports to the contrary, polls consistently reveal that the
majority of the American public supports aid to the homeless.
According to the polls, the majority of the public understands the
underlying causes of homelessness, and 81% would pay additional taxes
to fund increased aid.

The most
dramatic stat in a 1997 Center on Budget’s analysis (Trends in the
Distribution of After-Tax Income) is that the wealthiest one percent
of Americans (2.6 million people) received as much after-tax income
in 1994 as the bottom 35 percent of the population combined (88
million people). In contrast, in 1977, the bottom 35 percent had
nearly twice as much after-tax income as the top one percent. During
the 17 years between 1977 and 1994, the wealthiest one percent saw
their income shoot up 72 percent, to $374,000 a year. At the same
time, the poorest fifth of the population saw their incomes drop 16
percent. One stat brings home the meaning of this shift: if families
in the bottom fifth had received the same share of income in 1994 as
they did in 1977, each family would have had an additional $2654 in
income. Instead, each family in the top one percent had an additional
$132,955 in income!

Families in the
middle of the income spectrum also lost ground, though not as much.
The middle fifth’s share of national income declined from 16.3
percent to 15.2 percent, an average loss of $1800 in income. “These
income trends since 1977 primarily reflect the effects of changes in
the private economy,” concludes the Center on Budget’s analysis.
People at the top are being paid much more while those in low-skill
jobs are making much less. “Changes in technology and international
trade, as well as the weakening of unions, are among the factors that
appear to be driving these diverging paths.” Poverty declines in
1997, but not by much The latest statistics from the Census Bureau
show that several years of economic growth has lowered the poverty
rate, but very slowly, from 13.7 percent in 1995 to 13.3 percent in
1997. But this is still higher than the rate in 1989 (13.1 percent),
shortly before the recession of the early 1990s. One out of eight
Americans is poor. One of five children (19.9 percent) is poor. And
those who are poor keeping falling further behind. In 1997, the
average poor family fell another $200 further below the poverty line.
Their income is $6602 below the poverty level. In 1996, the number of
“very poor” Americans — those making less than half the poverty
line — increased by a half million, up to 14.4 million people. The
poverty line for a family of four was $16,036 in 1996. This deepening
of poverty “appears to be related to a weakening of safety net
programs,” according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
It found that “declines in the number of people receiving basic
assistance targeted on needy families have far outstripped the
decline in the number of people who are poor.” For example, the
number of female-headed families with children who are poor declined
4.3 percent. But the number of such families who receive assistance
declined 22.6 percent, or more than five times as fast. Between 1995
and 1997, the decline in the number of people receiving food stamps
was five times greater than the decline in the number of people
living in poverty. The Center on Budget cites unpublished Census
Bureau data that show that the number of children lifted out of
poverty by programs such as welfare and food stamps decreased by
700,000 between 1995 and 1997. How do we compare? This decrease in
support for low income Americans will solidify the U.S.’s status as
the country with the most unequal distribution of income in the
developed world. A very interesting new study by Timothy Smeeding of
Syracuse University compared inequality among 22 nations, using data
from the Luxembourg Income Study (American Income Inequality in a
Cross-National Perspective: Why Are We So Different?). He looked at
adjusted disposable income (which includes wages plus government
transfer payments –which would includes things like welfare and
Social Security — less direct taxes) for households near the top
(90th percentile) and near the bottom (10th percentile). In this
country, the wealthiest 10 percent enjoy nearly six times more income
than those in the bottom 10 percent. The ratio between the top and
bottom — 5.78 — was much greater in the U.S. than any other
country. It is double the ratio in many countries and 60 percent
higher than the average ratio. (Given the extreme wealth of the top
one percent of Americans, this ratio probably significantly
understates the actual differences between the very rich and the
poor.) The major cause of this disparity, Smeeding found, is this
country’s “very low relative incomes at the bottom.” The
poorest 10 percent of households have only 36 percent of the income
of households at the middle. In contrast, low-income households in
most other countries have at least half the average income for that
country. But does inequality matter as much in this country since
average income in the U.S. is the highest in the world? Are those at
the bottom in this country really worse off than those at the bottom
in other countries? Smeeding examined these questions, using a
database that compares purchasing power in 15 countries. He found
that low-income Americans were still worse off than low-income people
in every other country but one — the United Kingdom. (Plus, this
comparison does not take into account the fact that low-income
households in the U.S. must spend more on services such as health
care and child care that are more heavily subsidized in other
countries.) At the other end, rich Americans have 42 percent more
income than the rich in the other nations! What causes our greater
inequality? Smeeding says his research points to two factors: low
wages and meager income supports for low income families with
children and low income elderly people. Smeeding also looked at
another common response to inequality in the U.S.: it’s okay
because Americans are much more economically mobile: the poor can
become the rich! Smeeding found that it’s true that many once
middle income Americans have become rich. But, he writes, studies of
income and mobility across nations clearly show that “economic
mobility is not greater in the United States than in other nations.”
Indeed, “economic mobility in the United States has not increased
with rising inequality and may, in fact, have fallen in recent
years.” Timothy Smeeding is the director of the Center for Policy
Research, The Maxwell School, Syracuse University. The study is
available on the university’s web site

How many people
live below the poverty level and what is the poverty rate for the
most current year?

The poverty rate
decreased in 1997 to 13.3%, down from 13.7% in 1996. The number of
poor people remained statistically significant at 35.6 million
people.

Похожие страницы:

PovertyEssay, ResearchPaper The Solution To Povertyin the USA Poverty is a major problem in the United ... basically five different categories in which eachpoverty stricken person can be ... place in. 1) Those who are not ...

PovertyEssay, ResearchPaper Compare and Contrast absolute ... be said to be inpoverty when they lack the ... of absolute povertyin sociological research. Relative poverty is measured in terms of ... uses fifty indicators to measure povertyin Britain. There are a ...

PovertyEssay, ResearchPaper As our nation and the ... is the case of poverty. The word povertyin the common dictionary is ... material needs or comforts . But Povertyin America is not due to ... time American workers who live inpoverty is actually three times what ...

PovertyEssay, ResearchPaper Most Americans are ... we are faced with poverty. ?In Palm Beach County, ... are living inpoverty? (Hammersley). In the book Homeless Families In America, Jonathan ... risks associated with living inpoverty. Poverty is a growing problem ...

PovertyEssay, ResearchPaperPoverty is hunger. Poverty is lack of shelter. Poverty is being sick and not ... has been described in many ways. Most often poverty is a situation ... their wishes because of poverty. While kept in a biological level of existence ...